The Cognitive Science of Religion (Part 1)

For more on this event, visit: bit.ly/jrjCax
For more on the Berkley Center, visit: berkleycenter.georgetown.edu
May 3, 2011 | Is religious experience intrinsically related to human cognition? In recent decades this question has prompted significant academic interest from a wide range of scholarly disciplines including anthropology, biology, philosophy, and psychology. The result of this research is an emerging consensus among scientists that the mind has a natural bias towards religious ideas. The human inclination towards religion, if true, would have consequences for the treatment of religion in public affairs. Cognitive psychologist Justin Barrett has been a leading figure in the exploration of this question and spoke to Religious Freedom Project on May 4, 2011. Richard Sosis, a prominent scholar in the field of evolutionary anthropology offered a formal response. Following their interventions, a general discussion ensued between invited scholars representing a diverse set of academic fields.

[@yuriythebest]

where is part 2?

[@PaperPlateClorox]

More of this please. Force it onto the general public.

[@billkeon880]

Great lecture until the last few minutes in which the usual parachute is opened so as not to offend any theists watching. I can imagine the existence of purple dragons. It is a natural concept coming from my understanding of colours and creatures that look like horses or lizards that breathe, and the concept of fire. But that doesn't give credence that they exist. The ability and propensity to see and believe in ghosts is a natural one (as is hyper agency detection) and will probably always be with us, but that does not mean ghosts are real. The anti-religion view does not argue against the perception of or naturalness of a religious cognition (or having a material origin in the brain), it always argues against the existence of an ACTUAL god. Anti-theist arguments have added cognition and psychology as more explanations (in addition to their many other explanations) of why the idea of a god is much more likely as an idea rather than an actuality. The burden of proof of an actual god existing lies with the theist and therefore the default position, (unlike Barrett's assertion that religion should be seen as innocent until proven guilty) should be with atheism.

[@TBOTSS]

Expect that in most debates and intellectual exchanges the theist exposes the atheist as a clueless prat. All four of the Horsemen of Atheism have been exposed; Hitchens by both William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'souza, Sam Harris by Craig, Dennett by D'souza (my favourite debate as Dennett is humiliated at his own university); and Dawkins by John Lennox and Rowan Williams. Of course the Oxford Secularists and Atheists asked Dawkins to debate Craig but sadly all Dawkins can do is shit himself and write a pathetic, lying article in the Guardian.

[@8698gil]

TBOTSS Bullshit

[@TremendousSax]

​@@TBOTSS Cope

[@terbospeed]

Imagine a world where we cannot criticize people's delusional religious beliefs because... They have some political influence over us..